Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Kenb:
ERF really missed the boat with this one as it was a serious contender to the Scania and Volvo.
Ken b
Nothing in the domestic stable really compared with them so that’s difficult to assess. The LV, SP and MW cabbed RHD units were basic 32-tonners and were not Euro-spec. Only the MWs were sleepers until the Jennings converted SP (B-series) came along and eventually the higher cab version of the SP. The full B-series Euro cab with LHD replaced the 7MW-cabbed NGC, only overlapping it by just under a year IIRC. The exception was the LHD 5MW-cabbed unit which was Euro-spec but had a fixed cab and was rather more basic. You’re right: it should have been a winner! Plenty about that in the forthcoming Book 3 in August. Robert
Realistically it was a bit heavy and the wrong gearing and the relatively big power small cam ■■■■■■■ a bit too thirsty,for general domestic use.It all might have been a bit different given 65 mph at 1,800 rpm gearing,big cam E290 engine and UK alignment with 38t + Euro weight regime to match the Euro rhetoric.
It was only ever going to make a good heavy hauler here and then hampered by the 4 x 2 standard spec.
On that note how big a seller was the E290 powered B series here by comparison especially after the move to 38t ?.I’d guess that would be the benchmark to go by as to the potential of the NGC.Given the right circumstances in available spec,including the right engine/gearing combination and a more weight friendly regime to finally make backward looking operators make the jump into the late 20th century.
Personally as you know I think the B series investment was a waste of money including not buying the excuse that ERF needed the in house B series cab.Resulting in a retrograde product in that regard v the all metal cab opposition.As opposed to just soldiering on with the NGC and allowing the domestic market to gradually adjust to it during the following years.Possibly including the axing of all the obsolete LV and MV type designs and crucially all product support for them.Thereby providing both rationalisation and with it economies of scale and a sales policy of we’re moving on take it or leave it.
Too heavy? I don’t think so, compared with similar Continental contenders.
Relatively small powered? I don’t think so, compared with similar Continental contenders.
Too thirsty? I don’t think so, compared with the Scania 140 in the 1975 EuroTest.
Too thirsty for general domestic use? It wasn’t designed for general domestic use.
Wrong gearing? I don’t think so. It was geared almost exactly the same as its Continental cousins designed for European work.
Big-cam 290? They were not available in UK at that time, though two NGCs were thus equipped while undergoing trial with ■■■■■■■■
Axing the LV? That’s what the B-series was directly designed to replace; and replace it, it did once customers decided the time was right.
Only ever going to make a heavy haulier here? It was designed for the Continent as a regular tractive unit.
B-series a retrograde product? That’s comparing apples with pears again. The B-series was designed as a low-powered, day-cabbed 32-tonner to replace the A-series on domestic work. The NGC was a stand-alone long-haul tractor.
Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Too heavy? I don’t think so, compared with similar Continental contenders.
Relatively small powered? I don’t think so, compared with similar Continental contenders.
Too thirsty? I don’t think so, compared with the Scania 140 in the 1975 EuroTest.
Too thirsty for general domestic use? It wasn’t designed for general domestic use.
Wrong gearing? I don’t think so. It was geared almost exactly the same as its Continental cousins designed for European work.
Big-cam 290? They were not available in UK at that time, though two NGCs were thus equipped while undergoing trial with ■■■■■■■■
Axing the LV? That’s what the B-series was directly designed to replace; and replace it, it did once customers decided the time was right.
Only ever going to make a heavy haulier here? It was designed for the Continent as a regular tractive unit.
B-series a retrograde product? That’s comparing apples with pears again. The B-series was designed as a low-powered, day-cabbed 32-tonner to replace the A-series on domestic work. The NGC was a stand-alone long-haul tractor.
Robert
Just to clarify.Firstly I thought 
the question was it’s suitability for the ‘domestic’ market ?.Obviously leading onto why was it ‘then’ discontinued anyway ( in favour of the B Series ).
I said it was a bit too powerful not,not powerful enough.While the small cam was also obviously perceived as being too thirsty hence the big song and dance about the big cam’s increase in fuel efficiency when it arrived on the scene in the domestic market.
As for gearing good luck with meeting the need for regular 60 mph running speeds as it stood.
Which leaves the big questions.What was the sales take up for the E290 sleeper equipped B series ( in the ‘domestic’ market ) and could it have been improved by instead ‘staying’ with the NGC instead of discontinuing it ?.
As for the weight issue as we know the domestic market in the day seemed to be applying some weird double standards regarding the unladen weight expected of domestic products v the foreign competition.The 32t gross limit just adding to that problem.
Carryfast:
Which leaves the big questions.What was the sales take up for the E290 sleeper equipped B series ( in the ‘domestic’ market ) and could it have been improved by instead ‘staying’ with the NGC instead of discontinuing it ?.
[/quote]
The E290 sleeper-cabbed B-series - which didn’t come out for a long time, BTW, and the LHD version didn’t come out till the end of '76 - was very popular. There were certainly plenty around by the end of the '70s and I drove some. They didn’t sell that well on the Continent, mainly because of the recession combined with ERF’s decision to wind down its European operations in '79 because it felt that low-volume production of an expensive (for ERF) ‘specialist’ (ie LHD) model was untenable. They did well in other locations abroad. ERF didn’t return to Europe 'till the borders fell in about '91 or '92. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Which leaves the big questions.What was the sales take up for the E290 sleeper equipped B series ( in the ‘domestic’ market ) and could it have been improved by instead ‘staying’ with the NGC instead of discontinuing it ?.
The E290 sleeper-cabbed B-series - which didn’t come out for a long time, BTW, and the LHD version didn’t come out till the end of '76 - was very popular. There were certainly plenty around by the end of the '70s and I drove some. They didn’t sell that well on the Continent, mainly because of the recession combined with ERF’s decision to wind down its European operations in '79 because it felt that low-volume production of an expensive (for ERF) ‘specialist’ (ie LHD) model was untenable. They did well in other locations abroad. ERF didn’t return to Europe 'till the borders fell in about '91 or '92. Robert
0
Maybe it would be fair to say in that case that staying with the already LHD designed all metal cabbed NGC,in E290 powered form and re engineering it with a RHD option and higher gearing for the domestic market and to better suit the characteristics of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ have been the best of all worlds.
IE not so much a case of ERF having ‘missed the boat’ as Kenb said,as axed the NGC before its time and then money wasted on developing a needless replacement for it ?.IE a miscalculation by ERF’s management seemingly blinded by an obsession with in house cab production,when the operation was always going to be based on the assembly model anyway ?.
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Which leaves the big questions.What was the sales take up for the E290 sleeper equipped B series ( in the ‘domestic’ market ) and could it have been improved by instead ‘staying’ with the NGC instead of discontinuing it ?.
The E290 sleeper-cabbed B-series - which didn’t come out for a long time, BTW, and the LHD version didn’t come out till the end of '76 - was very popular. There were certainly plenty around by the end of the '70s and I drove some. They didn’t sell that well on the Continent, mainly because of the recession combined with ERF’s decision to wind down its European operations in '79 because it felt that low-volume production of an expensive (for ERF) ‘specialist’ (ie LHD) model was untenable. They did well in other locations abroad. ERF didn’t return to Europe 'till the borders fell in about '91 or '92. Robert
0
Maybe it would be fair to say in that case that staying with the already LHD designed all metal cabbed NGC,in E290 powered form and re engineering it with a RHD option and higher gearing for the domestic market and to better suit the characteristics of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ have been the best of all worlds.
IE not so much a case of ERF having ‘missed the boat’ as Kenb said,as axed the NGC before its time and then money wasted on developing a needless replacement for it ?.IE a miscalculation by ERF’s management seemingly blinded by an obsession with in house cab production,when the operation was always going to be based on the assembly model anyway ?.
It would be fair to say that, CF. And I agree with much of what you are saying, though I think we’ve covered most of this ground before. One thing we can be sure of is that the 7MW Motor Panels cab needed upgrading to keep up with the opposition. A natural progression, as I think you youself once suggested, would have been to share the Motor Panels Mk5 cab used by Seddon-Atkinson for its LHD 400 with the same drive-line. However, Jack Cooke was the mastermind behind the NGC and he’d recently defected from the then newly-formed SA (having been with Atkinson) and was hardly likely to go pleading for a slice of the new cab pie. So it may have been a bit of politicking and planning and financing mixed up. Bear in mind, too, that the SP-cab must have been planned even before the NGC turned up, for it to have been in production barely a year after the NGC. As I’ve said before, the sleeper-cabbed long-haul B-series was an afterthought, not a design plan. I think we may just have to live with history as it was on this one, old mate! Cheers, Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
It would be fair to say that, CF. And I agree with much of what you are saying, though I think we’ve covered most of this ground before. One thing we can be sure of is that the 7MW Motor Panels cab needed upgrading to keep up with the opposition. A natural progression, as I think you youself once suggested, would have been to share the Motor Panels Mk5 cab used by Seddon-Atkinson for its LHD 400 with the same drive-line. However, Jack Cooke was the mastermind behind the NGC and he’d recently defected from the then newly-formed SA (having been with Atkinson) and was hardly likely to go pleading for a slice of the new cab pie. So it may have been a bit of politicking and planning and financing mixed up. Bear in mind, too, that the SP-cab must have been planned even before the NGC turned up, for it to have been in production barely a year after the NGC. As I’ve said before, the sleeper-cabbed long-haul B-series was an afterthought, not a design plan. I think we may just have to live with history as it was on this one, old mate! Cheers, Robert
As you know I do think the fact that the SA 400 type cab didn’t end up being the standard default choice for an NGC ‘update’,Leyland T45,and maybe a Foden option too.Or that the resulting T45 wasn’t offered as Rolls/■■■■■■■ only from day 1.While the Bedford TM wasn’t similarly standardised with Detroit 92 series leading onto 60 series,at which point GMC did a runner and effectively handed its market share to Volvo on both sides of the Atlantic.Was certainly all politicking.But in the sense of the deliberate sacrifice of the UK and to an extent US truck manufacturing industry,for geopolitical reasons.Nothing to do with any of them ‘missing any boats’. 
ERF-NGC-European:
…
One thing we can be sure of is that the 7MW Motor Panels cab needed upgrading to keep up with the opposition. A natural progression, as I think you youself once suggested, would have been to share the Motor Panels Mk5 cab used by Seddon-Atkinson for its LHD 400 with the same drive-line. However, Jack Cooke was the mastermind behind the NGC and he’d recently defected from the then newly-formed SA (having been with Atkinson) and was hardly likely to go pleading for a slice of the new cab pie. So it may have been a bit of politicking and planning and financing mixed up. Bear in mind, too, that the SP-cab must have been planned even before the NGC turned up, for it to have been in production barely a year after the NGC. As I’ve said before, the sleeper-cabbed long-haul B-series was an afterthought, not a design plan. I think we may just have to live with history as it was on this one, old mate! Cheers, Robert
Hmmm. Are we sure the big SP cab was an afterthought? It would have made sense to design the SP to have day and sleeper versions. ERF had been supplying customers with both types of cab for about a decade before the SP hit the market, and building one’s own stuff is preferable to adapting someone else’s. Seddon Atkinson’s 400 had a dedicated cab, of which SA were proud- there is no way they would allow a competitor to use their latest product. The new Motor Panels cab was on the Foden Universal, and I can’t imagine anyone at ERF wanting a Foden cab on their flagship.
[zb]
anorak:
Hmmm. Are we sure the big SP cab was an afterthought? It would have made sense to design the SP to have day and sleeper versions. ERF had been supplying customers with both types of cab for about a decade before the SP hit the market, and building one’s own stuff is preferable to adapting someone else’s. Seddon Atkinson’s 400 had a dedicated cab, of which SA were proud- there is no way they would allow a competitor to use their latest product. The new Motor Panels cab was on the Foden Universal, and I can’t imagine anyone at ERF wanting a Foden cab on their flagship.
Strange how inter brand rivalry didn’t seem to matter in favour of shared development after the foreign competition had got its way. 
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … cab-tastic
Carryfast:
Strange how inter brand rivalry didn’t seem to matter in favour of shared development after the foreign competition had got its way.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … cab-tastic
Those makes collaborated to build that cab- such deals were ordinary. Leyland, ERF, Foden and Atkinson were competitors, so made their own cabs (apart from the odd chassis with Motor Panels on it). There is no comparison to any of the collaborative deals.
[zb]
anorak:
Leyland, ERF, Foden and Atkinson were competitors, so made their own cabs (apart from the odd chassis with Motor Panels on it). There is no comparison to any of the collaborative deals.
In this case we’re talking about them ‘all’ using a MP product not their ‘own’ in house one and settling on a similar design on the basis of natural selection.All bets should then be off in that regard.IE asking an outside contractor to make a certain type of optimum design arguably doesn’t give that specific customer intellectual property rights over the resulting product ?.On that note we’re not talking about any patent infringements to my knowledge either ?.
Surely in that case anyone else has the right to say I’ll also have one just like that thanks and the supplier has the right to say yes fine we can do that for you too just like all the other cases of MP cab use among rival manufacturers.While in this case we’re talking about the long term survival of the industry as a whole in it being in all the parties interests to get the best product possible while sharing and minimising their individual development costs.In the case of the 400 cab how much of that development was actually directly apportionable to SA/IH’s designers,as opposed to MP’s and then paid for at point of purchase ?.
[zb]
anorak:
Hmmm. Are we sure the big SP cab was an afterthought? It would have made sense to design the SP to have day and sleeper versions. ERF had been supplying customers with both types of cab for about a decade before the SP hit the market, and building one’s own stuff is preferable to adapting someone else’s. Seddon Atkinson’s 400 had a dedicated cab, of which SA were proud- there is no way they would allow a competitor to use their latest product. The new Motor Panels cab was on the Foden Universal, and I can’t imagine anyone at ERF wanting a Foden cab on their flagship.
Well it arrived on the market as a relatively low-powered (to the NGC) 32-tonner with a day cab and not enough room on the chassis for a sleeper. CM did report in '74 that there may be sleeper version in '76. The Dutch were buying Jennings-converted cab extension jobs with ■■■■■■■ 250s in. The big LHD ones didn’t materialise until the NGC’s final production year, presumably to replace it. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
[zb]
anorak:
Hmmm. Are we sure the big SP cab was an afterthought? It would have made sense to design the SP to have day and sleeper versions. ERF had been supplying customers with both types of cab for about a decade before the SP hit the market, and building one’s own stuff is preferable to adapting someone else’s. Seddon Atkinson’s 400 had a dedicated cab, of which SA were proud- there is no way they would allow a competitor to use their latest product. The new Motor Panels cab was on the Foden Universal, and I can’t imagine anyone at ERF wanting a Foden cab on their flagship.
Well it arrived on the market as a relatively low-powered (to the NGC) 32-tonner with a day cab and not enough room on the chassis for a sleeper. CM did report in '74 that there may be sleeper version in '76. The Dutch were buying Jennings-converted cab extension jobs with ■■■■■■■ 250s in. The big LHD ones didn’t materialise until the NGC’s final production year, presumably to replace it. Robert
Seems like a good strategy to me. They had not done a tilt cab before (to my knowledge), so the NGC was the guinea pig for that- if they had cocked that part of it up, the LHD flagship B series would arrive as the solution to the problem, with its future uncompromised by failure. Similarly, any teething troubles with the SP would be best restricted to the cheap and cheerful end of the market.
[zb]
anorak:
Well it arrived on the market as a relatively low-powered (to the NGC) 32-tonner with a day cab and not enough room on the chassis for a sleeper. CM did report in '74 that there may be sleeper version in '76. The Dutch were buying Jennings-converted cab extension jobs with ■■■■■■■ 250s in. The big LHD ones didn’t materialise until the NGC’s final production year, presumably to replace it. Robert
Seems like a good strategy to me. They had not done a tilt cab before (to my knowledge), so the NGC was the guinea pig for that- if they had cocked that part of it up, the LHD flagship B series would arrive as the solution to the problem, with its future uncompromised by failure. Similarly, any teething troubles with the SP would be best restricted to the cheap and cheerful end of the market.
[/quote]
Here’s Patrick Dyer on this in his book on the B, C, CP & E-series:
‘When the B-series was launched it was only available with a day cab and there are a number of reasons to suggest that ERF had no intention of offering a sleeper at all and was instead expecting its recently revised version of the European, with the steel 7MW cab, to fill that requirement. From an engineering point of view, the hardware assembly at the rear of the SP cab, which provided the cab support and mounting gantry for air tanks, air filters and header tank, was always going to be a problem if a sleeper version was going to evolve from the day cab. Also, though less critical, the standard chassis was too short to accommodate the extra cab length. To think that a company with the engineering prowess of ERF could have missed these facts in the design process is highly unlikely.’
[/b]
Robert
That quoted paragraph seems to contradict itself at the last. However you interpret it, the notion that ERF would engineer a new cab, to use for a dozen years or so, but decide to fit a decade-extant outsourced item to its flagship luxury model, does not bear scrutiny for long. The “gantry” is just a cheap fabrication- a bracket.
[zb]
anorak:
That quoted paragraph seems to contradict itself at the last. However you interpret it, the notion that ERF would engineer a new cab, to use for a dozen years or so, but decide to fit a decade-extant outsourced item to its flagship luxury model, does not bear scrutiny for long. The “gantry” is just a cheap fabrication- a bracket.
In which case it seems to be down to interpretation of the design facts, rather than any knowledge of ERF’s intentions which are steering this debate. Nonetheless, it would seem that ERF had been happy for the NGC to sail on for some time; at least until the advent of the LHD sleeper. I was informed by an old field engineer at the time that if ERF hadn’t been so keen to push the new SP sleeper, the NGC should have gone on to sell in much greater numbers; so there may still be some truth in the notion that it was strangled before its use-by date, (whether or not the SP was intended only as a day-cabbed 32-tonner!). Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
I was informed by an old field engineer at the time that if ERF hadn’t been so keen to push the new SP sleeper, the NGC should have gone on to sell in much greater numbers; so there may still be some truth in the notion that it was strangled before its use-by date, (whether or not the SP was intended only as a day-cabbed 32-tonner!). Robert
^
I’d go along with that idea.Also bearing in mind the statement ‘’ comparing apples with oranges the B series was designed as a low powered day cabbed 32 tonner to replace the A series’'.
On that note by the mid 1970’s it was clear that the domestic market was following Europe in terms of trucks like the sleeper cab DAF 2800 becoming mainstream domestic use products.I know because I drove a 1978 example.Which was bought as a fleet haulage truck in a firm moving away from day cab Gardner engined B series from that time at least.In view of which I’d suggest that the SA 400’s place in this argument can’t be underestimated and it seems unbelievable to me that ERF’s management wouldn’t have seen that.While being the exception which proved the rule that our whole truck manufacturing industry was deliberately sabotaged by otherwise unexplainable management choices in terms not going with,if not axing,the right products.While being sometimes laughably keen on lumbering themselves with the wrong ones.Whether 71 series engines in the TM,to toy town cab design and TL12 in the T45.Or in this case axing the right truck and then deciding to tart up the wrong one as an afterthought so as to make this deliberately planned commercial suicide not look too obvious.
While on that note I think someone said elsewhere on another topic that even the SA 400 didn’t get an E290 option,let alone 320,until much later than those engine’s introduction date.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
I was informed by an old field engineer at the time that if ERF hadn’t been so keen to push the new SP sleeper, the NGC should have gone on to sell in much greater numbers; so there may still be some truth in the notion that it was strangled before its use-by date, (whether or not the SP was intended only as a day-cabbed 32-tonner!). Robert
^
I’d go along with that idea.Also bearing in mind the statement ‘’ comparing apples with oranges the B series was designed as a low powered day cabbed 32 tonner to replace the A series’'.
On that note by the mid 1970’s it was clear that the domestic market was following Europe in terms of trucks like the sleeper cab DAF 2800 becoming mainstream domestic use products.I know because I drove a 1978 example.Which was bought as a fleet haulage truck in a firm moving away from day cab Gardner engined B series from that time at least.In view of which I’d suggest that the SA 400’s place in this argument can’t be underestimated and it seems unbelievable to me that ERF’s management wouldn’t have seen that.While being the exception which proved the rule that our whole truck manufacturing industry was deliberately sabotaged by otherwise unexplainable management choices in terms not going with,if not axing,the right products.While being sometimes laughably keen on lumbering themselves with the wrong ones.Whether 71 series engines in the TM,to toy town cab design and TL12 in the T45.Or in this case axing the right truck and then deciding to tart up the wrong one as an afterthought so as to make this deliberately planned commercial suicide not look too obvious.
While on that note I think someone said elsewhere on another topic that even the SA 400 didn’t get an E290 option,let alone 320,until much later than those engine’s introduction date.
- You must have read the S/A 400 threads on here. Steering, gear linkage, air filter fouling, cab corrosion are the headlines. The B series was the better machine, decisively, based on the experience of people who had both.
- The 400 got its E290 option the same time as every other maker in the Europe- January 1978. I remember that because I had to research it for you the first time, then regurgitate it at least once since.
Yes, having driven both for the same fleet for consecutive weeks, I’d say the B-series was a much better lorry all round than the SA400. The Fuller gearbox installation alone (for starters) was miles better in the ERF. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
I was informed by an old field engineer at the time that if ERF hadn’t been so keen to push the new SP sleeper, the NGC should have gone on to sell in much greater numbers; so there may still be some truth in the notion that it was strangled before its use-by date, (whether or not the SP was intended only as a day-cabbed 32-tonner!). Robert
^
I’d go along with that idea.Also bearing in mind the statement ‘’ comparing apples with oranges the B series was designed as a low powered day cabbed 32 tonner to replace the A series’'.
On that note by the mid 1970’s it was clear that the domestic market was following Europe in terms of trucks like the sleeper cab DAF 2800 becoming mainstream domestic use products.I know because I drove a 1978 example.Which was bought as a fleet haulage truck in a firm moving away from day cab Gardner engined B series from that time at least.In view of which I’d suggest that the SA 400’s place in this argument can’t be underestimated and it seems unbelievable to me that ERF’s management wouldn’t have seen that.While being the exception which proved the rule that our whole truck manufacturing industry was deliberately sabotaged by otherwise unexplainable management choices in terms not going with,if not axing,the right products.While being sometimes laughably keen on lumbering themselves with the wrong ones.Whether 71 series engines in the TM,to toy town cab design and TL12 in the T45.Or in this case axing the right truck and then deciding to tart up the wrong one as an afterthought so as to make this deliberately planned commercial suicide not look too obvious.
While on that note I think someone said elsewhere on another topic that even the SA 400 didn’t get an E290 option,let alone 320,until much later than those engine’s introduction date.
- You must have read the S/A 400 threads on here. Steering, gear linkage, air filter fouling, cab corrosion are the headlines. The B series was the better machine, decisively, based on the experience of people who had both.
- The 400 got its E290 option the same time as every other maker in the Europe- January 1978. I remember that because I had to research it for you the first time, then regurgitate it at least once since.
Yes, having driven both for the same fleet for consecutive weeks, I’d say the B-series was a much better lorry all round than the SA400. The Fuller gearbox installation alone (for starters) was miles better in the ERF. Robert
I might have remembered it wrong but definitely remember some questions over the timeline of the 320’s introduction and either way 1978 represents a let’s say unfathomable ‘delay’ in the ‘use’ of the E290 v it’s actual introduction in the general market place of let’s say closer to '76 ?.I think from memory being a ‘glitch’ in the difference in timeline between US manufactured examples and introduction v the UK licence built versions ?.
As for B series v SA 400 in this case that’s only meant to be a comparison of respective cab design and/or the ‘NGC’ v B Series in general. While the issue of all steel cab corrosion obviously goes with the territory and obviously didn’t put off the foreign competition in addition to equally obviously having won out in that regard.
On that note I think there’s every reason to believe that standardisation on SA 400 type cab design for both T45 and an NGC mk 2 could only have helped in creating a better product in both cases.Not to mention saving both Leyland and ERF a fortune in development and production costs.
Just found on-line, a much better image of the new picture I posted last week of the Collin NGC in its barn. Robert
